![Page 1: Reconciling the Theory and Practice of (Un)Reliable Wireless Broadcast](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070419/56815c2b550346895dca03a1/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Reconciling the Theory and Practice of (Un)Reliable Wireless Broadcast
Gregory ChocklerMurat Demirbas
Seth GilbertNancy Lynch
Calvin NewportTina Nolte
MIT, CSAIL
![Page 2: Reconciling the Theory and Practice of (Un)Reliable Wireless Broadcast](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070419/56815c2b550346895dca03a1/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
2
A better model for wireless broadcast
• For sensor-actuator networks dependability becomes crucial• Developing reliable and provably correct algorithms for
wireless ad hoc networks require a formal model of wireless broadcast
• What makes a good model ? Usability: Simplicity & Power
Model should allow algorithm designers to ignore the low-level details Model should allow complicated and interesting algorithms
Realism: Fidelity to the real world phenomenaAlgorithms designed and verified using the model should work as
expected in the real world
![Page 3: Reconciling the Theory and Practice of (Un)Reliable Wireless Broadcast](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070419/56815c2b550346895dca03a1/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
3
Myths of wireless broadcast models
1. Wireless broadcast is reliable
Origin: “Coordinated Attack” is unsolvable in the presence of unreliable channels [even a single message loss] FLP result
Reality check: Collisions are common place* Even under low traffic loads, MAC layer (collision avoidance by
back off) cannot avoid all concurrent transmissions Hidden Node Effect 802.11, BMAC, SMAC, TMAC
Electromagnetic interference
*Understanding packet delivery performance in dense WSN, Zhao Govindan Taming the underlying challenges of multihop routing in SN, Woo et al. Experimental evaluation of wireless simulation assumptions, Kotz et al. Complex behavior at scale: An experimental study of … Ganesan et al.
![Page 4: Reconciling the Theory and Practice of (Un)Reliable Wireless Broadcast](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070419/56815c2b550346895dca03a1/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
4
Myths of wireless broadcast models
2. Transmitter can detect collision
3. Collisions are uniform
Origin: Ethernet model
Reality check:
Transmission power swamps the receiver
Collisions are partial Transmission is partially affected by transmissions in
neighboring regions Physical characteristics of radio broadcast
![Page 5: Reconciling the Theory and Practice of (Un)Reliable Wireless Broadcast](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070419/56815c2b550346895dca03a1/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
5
Myths of wireless broadcast models
4. Collision detection is reliable
Origin: Ethernet model / Convenience
Reality check: • Capture effects prevent reliable collision detection*
A strong transmission captures the receiver and a weaker transmission goes unnoticed
• Noisy channels prevent reliable collision detection
* Exploiting the Capture Effect for Collision Detection and Recovery,Whitehouse, Woo, Jiang, Polastre, Culler. EmNetsII, 2005.
![Page 6: Reconciling the Theory and Practice of (Un)Reliable Wireless Broadcast](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070419/56815c2b550346895dca03a1/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
6
Contributions
• Partial Collision Model (PCM)
• Vote-veto algorithm for consensus in PCM** Two phase algorithm that tolerates partial collisions Constant round consensus
• Solvability of consensus under varying quality of collision detection**
** Consensus and Collision Detectors in Wireless Ad Hoc Networks,Chockler, Demirbas, Gilbert, Newport, Nolte. To appear in PODC 05
![Page 7: Reconciling the Theory and Practice of (Un)Reliable Wireless Broadcast](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070419/56815c2b550346895dca03a1/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
7
Outline of the talk
• Preliminaries• Collision Detection (CD)• Partial Collision Model (PCM)• Vote-Veto Algorithm• Ongoing Work
![Page 8: Reconciling the Theory and Practice of (Un)Reliable Wireless Broadcast](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070419/56815c2b550346895dca03a1/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
8
Preliminaries
• Ad hoc network, number and id of nodes unknown
• Nodes can fail by crashing anytime broadcast is an atomic operation (unlike in one-to)
• Synchronized rounds Broadcast at most one message Receive messages Perform state transition
![Page 9: Reconciling the Theory and Practice of (Un)Reliable Wireless Broadcast](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070419/56815c2b550346895dca03a1/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
9
Radio broadcast
• Basic properties Integrity: each message received is previously broadcast No duplication: each message is received at most once
• Eventual Collision Freedom (ECF) Exists a round r_ecf s.t. ForAll r>r_ecf, if at most b nodes broadcast in
r, then all correct nodes receive all messages in r MAC protocols can satisfy collision free period for unknown r_ecf, b To achieve ECF, we employ an active-passive service that obliviously
provides eventual good advice to nodes
![Page 10: Reconciling the Theory and Practice of (Un)Reliable Wireless Broadcast](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070419/56815c2b550346895dca03a1/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
10
Collision detection
Necessary for coping with undetectable message loss Receiver side monitoring and notification of collisions No info wrt # of lost messages or identities of senders
• Completeness: Ability to detect collisions Majority-complete: a collision is detected if a majority of
messages in a round is lost 0-complete: collision is detected if all messages in a round is lost
• Accuracy: No false positives Always and eventually accurate CD
• Receiver side collision detection is easily implementable in mote and 802.11 platforms
![Page 11: Reconciling the Theory and Practice of (Un)Reliable Wireless Broadcast](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070419/56815c2b550346895dca03a1/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
11
Partial Collision Model
• Integrity, No duplication, ECF, and CD No restriction on the pattern of collisions
Usability: Simple Powerful enough to solve consensus in constant rounds for
majority-complete CD and log rounds for 0-complete CD
Realism: Both ECF and majority/0-complete CD are easily achievable in
current wireless networks (Mote and 802.11)** We have implementations for Mica2/TinyOS platform
*Exploiting the Capture Effect for Collision Detection and Recovery, A new backoff alg for the IEEE802.11 distributed coordination fn., …
![Page 12: Reconciling the Theory and Practice of (Un)Reliable Wireless Broadcast](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070419/56815c2b550346895dca03a1/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
12
Consensus problem
• Agreement: No two nodes in P decide differently • Validity: Decision v is proposed by a node in P• Termination: All correct nodes eventually decide
Single-hop consensus All nodes in P are within single-hop Building block for multi-hop consensus
Applications: Beam control scenario Virtual Traffic Lights scenario Reliable (multi-hop) reprogramming
![Page 13: Reconciling the Theory and Practice of (Un)Reliable Wireless Broadcast](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070419/56815c2b550346895dca03a1/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
13
Vote-Veto algorithm
• Two phases: vote and veto• The algorithm is adaptive, employs active-passive service• Vote phase:
Every active node sends out its vote If a node hears no collision, the node updates its vote to minimum of
received votes If a node hears collision or different votes, it decides to veto
• Veto phase: If no veto messages are received or collisions detected, then a node
can decide, else nodes continue to next round
• Intuition: By having a dedicated veto phase, effects of collision is detectable
![Page 14: Reconciling the Theory and Practice of (Un)Reliable Wireless Broadcast](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070419/56815c2b550346895dca03a1/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
14
Proof (for majority-complete CD)
Let r be the first round any node decides
Since no node vetoed in r, every node received only a single vote and no collision detection during vote phase in r-1
Since maj-◊AC detects when ≥ half the messages are lost, each node receives a majority of messages broadcasted in vote phase in r-1
Since every majority set intersects, all nodes received the same unique vote.
ECF, active-passive service, eventual accuracy leads to a vote phase where every participant converge to a vote. After the second vote phase no node vetoes, hence every node decides in at most 5 rounds after Earliest-Stabilization-Time.
![Page 15: Reconciling the Theory and Practice of (Un)Reliable Wireless Broadcast](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070419/56815c2b550346895dca03a1/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
15
Consensus results overview
• Vote-Veto algorithm for AC, Maj-AC, ◊AC, ◊Maj-AC
• Three phase algorithm that iterates over each bit of the vote for 0-AC, 0-◊AC
ECFAC Θ(1)Maj-AC Θ(1)0-AC Θ(log|V|)◊AC Θ(1)Maj-◊AC Θ(1)0-◊AC Θ(log|V|)
![Page 16: Reconciling the Theory and Practice of (Un)Reliable Wireless Broadcast](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070419/56815c2b550346895dca03a1/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
16
Implementation
• Mica2/TinyOS platforms• Collision detection may be maj-complete
Detects a preamble of a message during reception of a message Courtesy of Whitehouse et al. case RX_STATE: {
...if (((data_in == (0xaa)) || (data_in == (0x55)))) {signal CollisionDet.collision();}…
• Vote-Veto implementation is around 250 lines of NesC• Experiments on MistLab MIT (motelab)
![Page 17: Reconciling the Theory and Practice of (Un)Reliable Wireless Broadcast](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070419/56815c2b550346895dca03a1/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
17
Ongoing work
• We have implemented Virtual Traffic Lights on Mica2/TinyOS Experiments with up to 15 nodes in single hop on the MistLab
testbed(MIT/CSAIL) show success Ongoing work on evaluation of CD
• Practical implementation of the Virtual Node architecture Implementation of a reliable virtual node by means of
maintaining a replicated state on unreliable, mobile nodes
• Efficient multi-hop consensus algorithms• Extending to Byzantine faults
![Page 18: Reconciling the Theory and Practice of (Un)Reliable Wireless Broadcast](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070419/56815c2b550346895dca03a1/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
18
Bonus material
• Consensus algorithm using 0-complete CD• Consensus for no-collision-freedom model
![Page 19: Reconciling the Theory and Practice of (Un)Reliable Wireless Broadcast](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070419/56815c2b550346895dca03a1/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
19
3 phase algorithm for 0-◊AC consensus
• Phase 1 : Each active node proposes an estimate Every node adopts the minimum estimate it hears
• Phase 2 : one round for each bit in the estimate If a node has 1 in the corresponding bit, it broadcasts a message If a node has 0, it listens & decides to veto if it hears a message or
collision• Phase 3 :
Any node that decides to veto broadcasts a veto If any node performs a veto, nodes start from phase 1
![Page 20: Reconciling the Theory and Practice of (Un)Reliable Wireless Broadcast](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070419/56815c2b550346895dca03a1/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
20
Consensus for No CF
ECF No CF
AC Θ(1) Θ(log|V|)Maj-AC Θ(1) Θ(log|V|)0-AC Θ(log|V|) Θ(log|V|)◊AC Θ(1) ImpossibleMaj-◊AC Θ(1) Impossible0-◊AC Θ(log|V|) Impossible